If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Okay, if you are implying the constitution intends to allow for two men or two woman to be married show me where the founding fathers, the writers of the Constitution mention homosexual marriage in any way. list gay couples lawfully married from the founding of the country until apparently it was outlawed.

The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.

Okay, if you are implying the constitution intends to allow for two men or two woman to be married show me where the founding fathers, the writers of the Constitution mention homosexual marriage in any way. list gay couples lawfully married from the founding of the country until apparently it was outlawed.

Not implying that at all. The Constitution does not mention heterosexual marriage either primarily, I believe, because the Founders believed such things to be a issue for the States. Notice that the Founders mentioned Interstate Commerce as being a federal concern, not intrastate commerce, which was to be left to the states. Of course that has been thoroughly corrupted over time, but that does not change the original intent.

The intent of the 9th and 10th amendments were that the Constitution was to resolve or regulate issues that might arise between the states, not to micromanage every state and citizen action that were to ever occur.

Now if you believe that the only rights and privileges that you have as a citizen are those which the mighty federal government allows you in their graciousness to have, then be my guest.

Okay, here's my final take on this. DOMA was not a bar on the states' making their own laws, it was a statement that, for the purposes of federal benefits, marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman. There is nothing unconstitutional in this, as it applies only to actions of the federal government. Since this was the part of the act that the court invalidated, I believe that the court erred. Kennedy's majority decision is particularly impressive in its lack of judicial reasoning, which is made up for by a heavy dose of vitriol.

The area where DOMA does entail a possible Constitutional issue is in the exemption of the states having to recognize marriages from other states. The issue here is the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and the precedent for forcing the states to accept gay marriages from other states is that when the divorce laws were more restrictive in most of the country, people could fly to Nevada, establish residency and get divorced without jumping through the same legal hoops that they had to in the rest of the country. If Reno divorces were valid in NYC, then California marriages are legal in Texas. If they argue this, that part of DOMA will fail. However, that doesn't make gay marriage good policy, and it certainly doesn't absolve those states that seek to impose their radical redefinition of marriage on the rest of the country of responsibility for spreading sexual anarchy.

The claim that the citizens of California do not have standing to defend their ballot initiatives against the politicians of the state is absurd. It's basically a license for elected officials to disregard their state constitutions. If the State of California suddenly decides to raise property taxes, in violation of Prop 10, and the Ninth Circus rules in favor of the state, there is no longer an appeals process. That's a deeply undemocratic, tyrannical precedent.

The claim that the citizens of California do not have standing to defend their ballot initiatives against the politicians of the state is absurd. It's basically a license for elected officials to disregard their state constitutions. If the State of California suddenly decides to raise property taxes, in violation of Prop 10, and the Ninth Circus rules in favor of the state, there is no longer an appeals process. That's a deeply undemocratic, tyrannical precedent.

Wiki -

United States District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.[14] Walker issued an injunction against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal.[15][16]A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel first asked the California Supreme Court if the proponents of Prop 8 had the right to appeal the district court's decision, since state government officials refused to do so. The California Supreme Court ruled that they did. None the less, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the federal district court's decision on February 7, 2012,[17] but the stay remained in place as appeals continued to the U.S. Supreme Court,[18] which heard oral arguments on March 26, 2013.[19]

United States District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.[14] Walker issued an injunction against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal.[15][16]A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel first asked the California Supreme Court if the proponents of Prop 8 had the right to appeal the district court's decision, since state government officials refused to do so. The California Supreme Court ruled that they did. None the less, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the federal district court's decision on February 7, 2012,[17] but the stay remained in place as appeals continued to the U.S. Supreme Court,[18] which heard oral arguments on March 26, 2013.[19]

I'm familiar with the judge's decision. He was wrong. Prop 8 was an amendment to the California constitution, and as such, did not violate the due process clause or equal protection clauses of the federal Constitution, because the regulation of marriage is not a federal issue. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments protect the sovereignty of the states and the people and the regulation of marriage, which the Constitution is silent on, is therefore a state issue. The California Supreme Court was correct in stating that proponents of the measure had standing to appeal in the absence of the state's due diligence (the state has an obligation to defend its laws, whether the governor likes them or not), but SCOTUS determined that they did not, hence their remand to the lower court.

But, I am using legal reasoning, which Justice Kennedy did not. He simply tarred all opponents of the redefinition of marriage as bigots.

BTW, still waiting for your definition of what constitutes a marriage. Are you ever going to answer the question?